Trentonian editorial: Sandy aftershock

Earthquakes have aftershocks, not storms like Sandy, right? Don’t be too sure. There’s an ominous post-Sandy tremor emanating from the direction of FEMA.

The agency is contemplating costly actions applicable to parts of the Jersey Shore. In their potential for controversy, these actions could make FEMA’s notorious Katrina era seem like the glory days of public popularity.

FEMA is mulling proposed new “flood and velocity zones” for shore areas designated as especially vulnerable to high winds and water. For property owners in such areas, this could be a devastating economic blow on top of the one they’ve sustained and have yet to recover from in Sandy.

The regulations signal astronomical hikes in flood insurance premiums and/or requirements that houses be elevated above designated storm-surge levels. The latter, of course, would constitute a massive expense, if even physically possible for a property owner to implement. Potentially affected owners fear the loss of their real estate investment or at best a disastrous plunge in property values.

Advertisement

From a strictly hard-nosed, public-policy standpoint, the contemplated actions make sense. Flood insurance is government-subsidized, and recovery for vulnerable properties costs taxpayers billions of dollars. The policy would be undeniably harsh in the toll it would take on many affected families’ finances. Raising the question: What about a bailout?

Which raises a follow-up question: Could a bailout, even a partial one, be justified? Not all of the potentially affected shore property owners are affluent, certainly. But they’re better off, certainly, than, for example, many elderly folks on the edge of desperation in long-time economically stressed-out places like Trenton, Camden and Newark.

It’ll be interesting to see how Gov. Christie, buoyed to a high-water mark in the polls thanks to his handling of Sandy up to now, grapples with this potentially more problematical aftermath, both politically and fiscally.

It has to be said on the recent evidence that bailouts, while they occasion great gusts of condemnatory Tea Party and libertarian rhetoric, don’t seem to capsize their political champions. Barack Obama waltzed to re-election after signing off on, and proudly adopting as his own, the George Bush-initiated bailouts of big banks and big automakers.

If there was compelling public-policy and moral case for bailing out other more desperate cases near and far — Trenton, Camden, Newark, North Philly, West Philly, Gary, South Chicago, East St. Louis, St. Louis, Oakland, “Southland” L.A., etc. — you’d have never known it from the Obama campaign or the election results.

Let’s see how the Big Guy, an agile Baryshnikov when it comes to performing difficult political ballets, does on this one.